|
Roger Ehrenberg
@
infoarbitrage
ÜT: 40.76136,-73.980129
|
|
managing partner @iaventures. working @thetradedeskinc @transferwise @signifyd @octanelending @memsql @robinhealthco @ethyca_. also @UMich @Columbia_Biz
|
|
|
20.161
Tweetovi
|
200
Pratim
|
34.689
Osobe koje vas prate
|
| Tweetovi |
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
14 h |
|
Yup. Took me a while but I got there.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
14 h |
|
See p. F-34. This shows the Series D pre-9/30/19 which is the original issuance ~$70m for 2.240m shares. The extension plus various warrants on the Series D are what boost the share count attributable to the class to 2.996m shares. What a cluster. Crunchbase # wrong it seems
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
14 h |
|
Actually, based on p. 96 it appears that the original Series D was for $70m. $70m + $13m = the $83m cited here. This yields $27.70 PPS assuming 2,996,217 shares upon conversion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
14 h |
|
You're missing something important. The $13m was a Series D extension sold at the original Series D price. I believe the total Series D, both initial and extension, was $113m. See p. 75 where additional Series D was issued to 2 accredited investors post 9/30/19 for $13m.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
17 h |
|
Ummm. I thought you were just asking about the ratchet provision. It could be set at a target IRR which pushed the make whole below the IPO price.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
18 h |
|
Square had this. The make whole ended up costing billions in future market cap.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
3. velj |
|
👃
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
3. velj |
|
💯. A humble and insightful comment. Totally true.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
3. velj |
|
Sage advice from @fredwilson borne of 30+ years of early stage investing experience. We embrace this frame @iaventures #vc #longgame twitter.com/avc/status/122…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
2. velj |
|
Building seed stage partnership link.medium.com/Watt7vMaL3 Some reflections on my love of seed stage investing and the founders and businesses I aspire to work with #vc #founders @iaventures
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
2. velj |
|
I think they would be equally secretive in private or public formats and that the SEC would be fine. Do you see tech companies disclose their core code or a biotech their chemical compounds?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
2. velj |
|
I don’t believe they would. I think they could be sufficiently obtuse as to comply with SEC disclosure regs while protecting their core IP, just like hard tech, biotechs, etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
Nailed it. 100% David.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
100% Lisa! I couldn't agree more. This is NOT suitable for a firm with a large early stage component and little strategy and cash flow diversification. That's where the ICGE / CMGI stories fell down. @bgurley
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
I'd argue that later stage VC cashflows are *relatively* predictable given the mix of management fee (on large AUM) and 2-3x net exit history. Augment this with venture credit and public portfolios leveraging private investment insights and I think the story is compelling.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
I totally agree David. a16z, GC are two logical candidates.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
That wasn't the question. And no, if you had a mix of later stage venture, venture credit products, public portfolios leveraging knowledge of private investments, etc. this would be fine.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
|
||
|
Roger Ehrenberg
@infoarbitrage
|
1. velj |
|
|
||